On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> I agree with this, certainly, but these are not considerations that the
> SQL spec takes into account. I've always found it odd of the spec to
> avoid these considerations and concerns, but it is the spec and it's
> viewpoint that we're discussing.
I don't think you can fairly infer anything about how an object not
covered by the spec should be displayed in a spec-compliant view.
>> Trying to say that it's the same kind of an object as something that
>> has neither seems really odd. The overlap between the operations you
>> can do on a materialized view and those you can do on a view is really
>> pretty small.
>
> ... That overlap is exactly the set that you can do on *just* a view,
> no? That's what I was driving towards anyway.
No. Materialized views don't have column defaults, and marking them
security_barrier does nothing.
>> You wouldn't expect to find "butter" and "peanut butter" in the same
>> aisle at the supermarket....
>
> No, though they are both spreadable and tasty. :)
Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company